Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Tue, 02 August 2016 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9751C12D56D for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4UbEKMYvVIfX for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpb1.bt.com (smtpb1.bt.com [62.7.242.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38CD912D178 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVCAS16-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.107) by EVMED03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:55:24 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) by EVCAS16-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:55:24 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.22) by rew09926dag03c.domain1.systemhost.net (10.55.202.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:55:24 +0100
Received: from rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e]) by rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net ([fe80::d514:fe50:560c:401e%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:55:24 +0100
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
Thread-Index: AdHjZ4nHkoHVP9v7Rwqgdt1DLC/zlgD5RCMAACN7ZwABC2yHYAAJOw2AACf33CA=
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:55:23 +0000
Message-ID: <1612497ced7e4f288781dfd89ff1e6cf@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <b779dd12f1bb412c96c800eddaaf0247@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <e2aa6ac517194af4b8c25c07f8e469fb@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <9cafc779-502e-cc7f-676c-f6659e207c81@uclouvain.be> <5fadd9cfcc01401b84db03052e165c69@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <D3994CAB-846A-4418-A399-C48D196717A3@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3994CAB-846A-4418-A399-C48D196717A3@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.216.161.25]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/FOaeBi-ET9rBpZxIbeejrM0Heeg>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] towards a potential work item on two-ended proxy
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:55:33 -0000

>It was also suggested to have a second (informational) document.
>... So a potential work item may say something like:
>The working group will detail the use cases /deployment scenarios, the 
>operational considerations and .... [anything else? Interaction with 
>endhost-to-endhost MPTCP?]
WH> I would think: use cases/deployment scenarios, protocol extensions 
WH> for the proxy
> Interaction with end-host MPTCP should be covered in the use case/deployment scenario

Phil:
What are the interactions with endhost-to-endhost MPTCP?  I imagined there wouldn’t be any, but it sounds like there are some. 

Thanks
phil